Seriati:
I just think they overwhelming succomb to a relatively unexamined analysis of "good team" and "bad team." It's a virtue signalling to the extreme. They've literally tied their entire identity as a "good person" into voting to support Democrats.
rather than examining the facts and simply coming to an honest conclusion you happen to disagree with.
Oldbrian, I can only call those like I see them. When arguments are in spite of facts its a point against (e.g., some still believe Trump colluded with Russia). When arguments ignore reality (e.g., believing that Biden somehow advocated for a COVID policy that would have been better) its a point against. When there isn't an argument at all (e.g., where discussion is suppressed with violence, or accusations of racism end legitimate discussion, or a sound bite is quoted as fact) its a point against.
But honestly, I haven't talked to any Democrats (despite living in a blue state) that have made a policy argument in favor of voting for Hilary or Biden. Even here on this board, Trump is evil is the argument. At best, you get a pseudo-argument, like Biden's going to tax the rich - but totally ignoring that in reality that under Biden's policies the rich will end up paying lower effective rates (just like they always have with Democratic tax policies), particularly the connected rich). There's a reason billionaires pushed heavily for Biden and it's not because they're going to lose money.
They're absolutely sure Trump is a criminal, but they can't actual show any evidence that supports this (they have all manner of inuendo they believe, but when it comes to evidence is always some form of it's been proven).
Immoral? yes. Unethical? Absolutely. Illegal? Apparently not. And the proof is in his own books, where he brags about it. He calls it being a good businessman.
Immoral, how so? In some way that was different than other politicians?
Unethical? Based on what?
Illegal? Again, innuendo. If only professional prosecutors with an axe to grind could look at every single paper he's ever touched, you're just sure they'd find a crime. What part of justice is that?
The ethical obligation of a prosecutor is to investigate crimes, not to investigate people. Do you know how absurd it is to apparently argue for unethical actions by prosecutors wielding the power of state in a claim that you find Trump unethical? Is the moral principal here that no wrong can be done, no matter the ethical or legal violations, or violations of the principles of justice, in the pursuit of a witch? We know he's a witch therefore no means is not justifiable by the ends of finding the proof. Mueller spent two years chasing that fake pipe dream utterly convinced in guilt without evidence.
They're absolutely sure that somehow Trump is unique in the history of the world is his obvious evilness and rudeness, despite that they watched him for years on tv and never noticed it,
Not even close to unique. But 'not the worst' is hardly an endorsement. And I did notice it from his time on TV and even earlier. But I'M not the one who thought he would make a good president.
But he did make a good President. Now we need to find someone with his policies and intelligence and contempt for the swamp and the ruling political class with less baggage. Tall order.
Did I mention how poorly you are coming across when you assume that Democratic voters are simply pulling the (D) lever without thinking about issues or character? Or that I admire the politician some other state elected?
Not sure why you think they are. What percentage of people are straight ticket voters and have been for more than 2 decades? Its surprising, and it means they don't consider character, policies or anything else. You can watch it at your local election level, where the same people that pull the straight ticket lever complain about the decisions the very people they keep putting back into office make. There are any number of people who claim they've never voted for the other party.
But again, I don't think this about all voters. I just think it about the majority. And I tend to think that there are certainly a larger number of R voters that profess to or actually vote based on character, but there are a bunch that don't. As recent evidence I point to Doug Jones winning office in deep red Alabama for purely moral reasons, while NJ handily sent Mendendez back to the Senate because of the risk of "losing" the Senate despite similar and worse ethical issues.
They believe every rumor they hear about him and repeat it.
like all of stories about the microchips in the vaccines, or the pedophiles operating out of the back rooms of pizza parlors?
Or that Trump told you to inject bleach or fish tank cleaner to fight Coronavirus? Or was going to institute marshal law on what now dozens of occasions? Or that his tax break was for the rich, when it was really a middle class tax cut? It's funny that the left has been highlighting the same story about the pizza parlors for four years now. It's almost like its memorable because it's an outlier or something?
They honestly believe that hiding criminal activity about Biden is a good thing to do,
Nope. And again you are supposedly talking about the average voter here. So you think that roughly half the population is so morally bankrupt that we would do anything to get a Democrat - any Democrat - into office.
I think the party picked Biden because he wasn't scary. The party is extreme, and there's no question they saw this election as a chance to get a radical shift in policy. If they had to run on that policy would they win?
I'd place those odds as zero percent. Wouldn't you think a national media would care about something like that? So why did they hide it? Against a backdrop where the media won't let the election turn into a policy debate, all that's really left is character. If Biden's character is bad, then it really would put to the test your claim that Democratic voters care about character. I guess the media paid you a compliment, because they believed they couldn't take a chance with sharing the truth with the voters.
Rather than looking at the shreds of evidence which have been released so far and saying 'man I wish whoever is sitting on the rest would release it so we could see what is actually going on'.
Remind me, who is sitting on that evidence? Who has the ability to broadcast it to the entire world but instead decided to release it to a single tabloid?
Not sure what you want released. There's more public evidence of Hunter's corruption that everything used in Trump's impeachment, Trump's "crimes" and the Russian collusion hoax combined. Did you look for it? I guaranty if it was about Trump or his kids it'd be billed as finding that white whale that Mueller couldn't find, that the NY AG couldn't find, that the House couldn't find.
and that violating the Constitution to get dirt on Trump is totally okay (though its criminal if Trump gets dirt on his opponent).
Nope again.
I'm sorry "Nope" to what? This isn't even disputable. Mueller deliberately violated the attorney client privilege to try and get dirt on Trump, planning all along not to prosecute but to turn the information over to Congress where there is no judge to hold the prosecutor accountable. Democrat congressmen and prosecutors have made up excuse after excuse to try and force disclosure of Trump's tax returns despite having no legitimate or articulable need in furtherance of legislation or real investigation of a crime. The FBI openly spied on a Presidential campaign on the flimsiest of grounds and used a FISA warrant to do so, even though if you read their notes their goal was an investigation targeting a US person for criminal (and even then it was a stretch) and not espionage purposes. The Constitution does not make an exception to the need for probable cause in such an investigation, which didn't exist. Even if you argue that this could be brought in a FISA court the extent of the spying went far beyond anything necessary to determine that there was no spying involved - and you have to ignore that the FISA court's Constitutionality has never been directly challenged - how could it be when it's secret and no defendant even knew their records were illegally seized. If nothing else, every decent person should care about what was done here.
But even specifically, how many hours of argument about Trump Jr's meeting with a Russian lawyer? Yet, the Clinton campaign hired a firm to hire a British spy to hire a suspected Russian spy to fee Russian propaganda to the FBI to distract from her unethical and illegal diversion of government records to a private server, and that all was somehow okay and it was okay that those agents of Clinton met with the Russian lawyer before and after the Trump Jr meeting (ie. a set up).
And what came of that? Nothing. Actually beyond nothing. Exoneration. Why exoneration? Because Mueller didn't bring those charges, and there was NOTHING stopping him from doing so as a matter of law. Trump Jr. had no legal immunity, there was no Constitutional issue stopping Mueller from filing charges. Why didn't he? You'd know if you read Mueller's report. Even under the most friendly interpretation of the relevant law possible, Mueller admitted in the report that no court had ever agreed that recieving true information about an opponent was a "thing of value" as contemplated by the relevant law, and even if you could jump that hurdle (which he knew he couldn't), for it to be criminal Trump Jr. would have had to know it was criminal and there was no evidence he did (and Mueller went on further to say there was no way that anyone could have been certain that it was given the problem with the valuation). Pretty much an entire fake story written to condemn a non-crime.
However, reasonable people CAN look at the same evidence and come to differing conclusions.
They could, but they're not. They're citing to conclusions as if they are facts.
Man, the (D) voters in your part of the country seem like a bunch of *censored*. Assuming they even exist. You did quite a job of disproving your initial statement. I no longer believe that you see the average (D) voter as "almost uniformly good people who mean well" You can't have that many derogatory opinions of them, of their intelligence, of their moral standards, or of their gullibility and still think we mean well.
Believe what you want. Most of my friends are Democrats, heck I was registered as a Democrat at one point. Both Dems and Republicans are susceptible to propaganda and media manipulation. You kid yourself if you think four years of full court media press, including entertainment and social media, has created more informed voters.
What's it created is a big swell of "hate" against Trump. I've talked to dozens of people that say Trump is a racist and can't even process that he's actually not, that his policies have been directly beneficial to minorities. I mean heck Van Jones even admitted it on the air the other day - and got death threats for it. How exactly does that parse out in the world of reasoned policy on the left?
